Pages

Saturday, December 31, 2005

Folks from my generation will always associate Bill Murray with Mr-stay-calm-know-it-all Peter Venkman from Ghostbusters, along with fellow comedians and collaborators Dan Ackroyd and Harold Ramis. Of late, he has been playing nonchalant characters, and probably would be better remembered for his role in Lost in Translation opposite Scarlett Johansson.

Maybe it's his style, that he projects he's sleepwalking through his roles, And this written-for-him role in Broken Flowers as Don Johnson, oops, I mean Don Johnston (with a T, there's a running joke about the Miami Vice fella), a Don Juan type character, seems to have cemented that opinion.

Don changes girlfriends like he changes his underwear. Not that he wants to, but his character makes him a difficult person to be with. We're led to believe that he has made enough from his computer business, and is in semi-retirement mode, doing nothing but watch television at the comfort of his home. His latest squeeze, played by Julie Delpy, has left him (gee what a cameo), and so did countless others before her.

But the pace picks up slightly (it moves terribly slow throughout the movie) when he receives a pink envelope, and inside a typewritten note, telling him that he has a son from an affair twenty years ago, and that son is now on a road trip looking for his father. However, the writer doesn't sign off, there is no return address, and the postmark is faded.

Putting it off as a prank, Don's best friend Winston (Jeffrey Wright) tries so hard to infuse interest and curiosity into Don (he's always putting on the deadpan facial expression), before Don finally, and reluctantly, accepts the itinerary given to him. Which is to revisit his old flames from around that time, to determine if they have in possession a typewriter, which probably was used to type that anonymous letter.

You might think that the premise is interesting, though nothing new, like Chris O'Donnell's The Bachelor, or John Cusack's High Fidelity, where the protagonist revisits his ex-lovers to discover various happenings and encounter various weird situations. Here, we have a load of talent playing Don's girlfriends from the past, like Sharon Stone, Frances Conroy, Jessica Lange, and even Tilda Swinton (the White Witch from Narnia) with dark hair.

Winner of Cannes Film Festival 2005, be warned that this film is an acquired taste, and may not appeal or be enjoyed by many. Firstly, the pacing is slow. There are plenty of moments where the plot doesn't propel forward, and shots just stay where they are. Almost every transition from scene to scene utilizes the fade-to-black technique, and each scene is surprisingly short.

Perhaps these techniques fit the Don character like a glove, highlighting his short relationships with each girl, and his indifference to the outcome of each relation. We see that each girl has moved on with her life, some married, some having children, some already successful in their business, and all totally in contrast with Don's laid back character. It is during these scenes of character interaction that we get to experience some comedy, otherwise the other half of the time, we see the usual repetitive shots in airplanes or inside a Ford Taurus, as if to highlight the monotony of travelling alone.

Though it's rated NC-16 for some nudity here, the only nudity you get is from a character called Lolita (Alexis Dziena, who plays Sharon Stone's daughter), and that's only a butt-shot. The entire scene (which I think is full frontal) gets edited out, and along goes the dialogue with it, which somehow screws up the entire episode. There are nuances and implications towards the end of that particular visit which will make you go "Huh?". Pity. Given the crowd in today's screening, I don't think an M18 or R21 is gonna hurt box office takings (school's reopening as well). Now, with that bad edit, I'm sure many will steer clear.

The ending is open ended, and is totally up to your interpretation. My take would be that while one half of the mystery is solved (or perceived to be solved), the other half of the mystery is still out there. And by leaving it as such, it paves way for discussion, which always enrich the experience of watching a movie.

The script reading session was held yesterday night during our mX year end gathering. It felt different having the script on hand, as compared to reading off the computer screen. Naturally, some typos (there were two) were spotted.

I thought the casting for DICK and KONG were spot on :-D Well, it should be, since the characters were modelled after them (without the evil characteristics of course). We're also a bit off our planned short film duration of 15 minutes... it probably looks like a 20-30 minute short as of now. Looks like we've got to either tweak a bit to tighten up pacing, or shoot first and edit later.

Now we've got to sort out schedule conflicts, availability, confirm the other casting, location scouting, inventory check... lots to do before our first day of shoot (when ah??)

And oh yeah, just thought of a wicked ending for one of the characters who originally was just hanging there.. haha, and what's the moral of the story?!

Thursday, December 29, 2005

Don't be fooled by the outline or tagline. This is a mockumentary, just to set your expectations right. I initially thought that it was a real documentary, with real, justifiable footage and interviews which will give the entire who-shot-JFK conspiracy a new spin. Sadly, it isn't, so don't get your hopes up too high.

Walter Ohlinger (Raymond J. Barry) claims to have been the second gunman that faithful day in Dallas. Filmmaker Ron Kobeleski (Dylan Haggerty) interviews Walter, and thought that he had perhaps the most important scoop of his career. We follow Walter back to Dallas as he demonstrates exactly what he did on that day to the audience.

Unfortunately, that's the good part. It goes downhill after that with Walter's account that his ex-Marine buddy and Commanding Officer had a role in masterminding the entire thing, and Ron and Walter go in search of that CO. But this mockumentary slowly takes a life of its own, and spins off into a thriller with a twist ending.

The delivery's quite raw, made to look like a documentary, but knowing that it's all scripted, just makes it a bit of a letdown. You would be better off with Oliver Stone's JFK instead.

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

4. The Brothers GrimmA real test of patience as the brothers try so darn hard to capture your imagination.

3. The Wayward CloudDisguised soft porn with madcap song and dance to titillate.

2. BewitchedOh Nicole, I so love you, but why oh why did you agree to make a remake that is so far, far away from the original? You twitched your nose so well, you should have wished that this remake could have been done properly, instead of hitting the damn rewind button near the end of the show.

1. ElektraJennifer, yo’s so fine in Daredevil, but your figure hugging costumes can’t lift this film from trash. Wonder who’ll emerge champ if you sparred with Halle Berry’s 2004 Catwoman?

Addendum: Some readers have highlighted my omission of The Promise.

Yes dear readers, I did not even consider that an effort of a movie, it's a disgrace to the medium, and to the martial arts genre. To hide behind a label of "fantasy" is just so lame.

I hated it so much that I had wiped it out from memory, until readers had to remind me that it actually existed.

So there, The Promise is ABSOLUTELY THE WORST MOVIE, not only for 2005, but like, EVAR!

It’s interesting to note that many of the films I’d pick as the Top 10 of 2005, happen to be romances.

In the mood for love am I?
Here we go:

10. In Good CompanyTopher Grace, Dennis Quaid and Scarlett Johansson make good company in this movie. Identifying with the loneliness in this one, I can.

9. Perhaps LoveIt’s been some time since a Chinese musical gets celluloid treatment and the complex romance draws you in, together with a myriad of rich colours and costumes.

8. CloserBeautiful cast with dysfunctional characters. Questions of modern day romances and insecurity have never been raised so subtly.

7. Be With MeDon’t worry Eric Khoo. The Academy might have disqualified your movie on a technicality, but I’d rank it as the best local movie to date. So much strength with so much unsaid. Inspirational.

6. Crying Out Love, in the Center of the WorldClassic Japanese love story on teenage romance, and love lost.

5. MillionsA boy, his trains, his imagination of the Saints, his longing for his mom, and loads of cash. Unconventional, excellent material.

4. Be With YouThis is yet another Japanese drama-weepy, which is on one hand so saccharine sweet, and the other, so painfully sad. Emotional roller coaster this one.

3. Der Untergang aka DownfallThe last hours of Hitler and his Nazi cronies are so accurately portrayed, you might mistake this for a documentary. Extremely engaging, up to the last minute.

2. Saving FaceChinese / Asian values being looked at in a refreshing way. So what if it’s a lesbian romance when the themes explored are so universal?

And my number one movie for 2005
1. CrashCompelling star-studded cast, tackling racism head on. Plot and narrative so nicely done, how they all come together at the end, you’d hardly find flaws. The song at the finale did it for me.

It's already been tentatively titled, one word with an exclamation point. Might end up as the shooting title if we can come up with something better.

The rough cut script is ready, and I distributed it to massb and dgital, before I was reminded, and realized that there are certain issues left unaddressed, and certain scenes I had in mind which were omitted.

Hmm... should be able to wrap it all up tonight. Can't wait to see the reaction of the others who have not had a whiff of what's brewing yet. Will know this Friday when we par-tay!

And yes, we do need to script-read it to see if it can fall within 15 minutes.

Monday, December 26, 2005

I've been a fan of Jet Li's movies, but have been quite disappointed with his latest offering "Danny The Dog"/"Unleashed". While the action was great as usual, somehow the storyline isn't compelling enough. I'm still eagerly anticipating his Fearless in 2006 though, as the publicity stills so far have been promising, and it's touted as his final action movie.

Which brings me back to Romeo Must Die. It's his first feature length Hollywood film as the protagonist, after his villainous start in Lethal Weapon 4 opposite Mel Gibson. And to compensate for the lack of classic martial arts action in LW4, there are tons of wire-work/CGI laden kung fu in this movie.

The storyline's pretty decent, with a gang war between an African American gang, and a Chinese gang, in which Jet belongs to. He and Aaliyah play the offspring of their respective mob bosses, and decide to team up to discover a recent spate of killings between their gangs, as their siblings become the latest victims.

As part of the plot, we see both gangs trying to engage in legitimate business, with a crooked NFL dealer thrown into the mix. It's of little surprise that both gangs, although different in race and culture, are run in the same way - a strong figure head, ruthless second-in-commands, and bumbling assistants.

What appeals probably is the chemistry between Jet and Aaliyah. The latter was an up and coming singing starlet, but unfortunately perished in a tragic air crash. Romeo Must Die is her first movie released when she's alive (the other being Queen of the Damned), and I'd thought she would make a decent actress too. She seemed to partner Jet Li well, and looked credible in some of the action sequences.

Much of the action is stylized, meaning you know, and in a very obvious manner, that the fights all involve wires (since it's HK's Cory Yuen choreographing, and Joel Silver producing it). A pretty nifty x-ray CGI effect comes up on screen each time Jet Li breaks someone's bones. Pretty cool, and not used to often to make you sick.

It's a decent movie which will engage you, especially on a lazy weekend or holiday.

The Code 3 DVD is stocked full with special featurettes, making of documentaries, music videos, and if put into a PC, even leads you to a simple fighting game online.

I've heard much hype about this horror film, and decided to take a look into it. It delivered some thrills, but nothing fantastic to rave about.

Starring Justin Long and Gina Philips as siblings on a road trip home, perhaps it is the relationship between the two which is refreshing, yet tinged with a sense of familiarity. Instead of the usual boy-girl romantic relationships which are staples of horror movies, sibling rivalry gets the nod, which to an audience, is something easier to identify with.

The main baddie is the unexplained - a mysterious man riding in a beat up armoured truck whom the siblings see dumping wrapped bodies in a church. Against his sister's advice, Darry decides to investigate, and hence they become the latest prey of the creature. We do not know anything more about it, only that it rises every 23 years, for 23 days to feed, to take something from his prey, and doing so by inflicting fear, and smelling.

The creature makeup is interesting, like a cross between a mer-man and a vampire bat, but you don't get to see it in its full glory until the end. And the end to some, might be a disappointment, as it still left things unexplained. Maybe that's the appeal, that you're free to interpret. There should be a lot of gore in this movie, but I suspect the Code 3 edition has pared it down quite a bit.

In short, this movie is one extended country road trip, with some mysterious elements and motivations added. Nothing too fancy, nothing too horrific. And yes, it did spawn a sequel.

There are countless of Star Trek spoofs out there, but this one really takes the cake. It's funny, witty, thoroughly enjoyable, and stars Tim Allen of the Home Improvement TV series (which I am "proud" to admit I never saw an episode before *horrors*)

Directly spoofing the original Star Trek series, Tim Allen plays a William Shatner clone with wicked delight. Here, he's Jason Nesmith, a self-centered man who's Captain Peter Taggart on the show Galaxy Quest. Rounding off his main crew are Sigourney Weaver, who plays buxomy blonde Gwen DeMarco/Lt. Tawny Madison, whose only job is to repeat what the ship's computer says, and Alan Rickman, as Alexander Dane/Dr. Lazarus, the token non-human onboard the ship, making him the butt of many alien jokes.

While the cast and crew of Galaxy Quest are made to be all chummy and such, in reality, they are a bunch of quarreling has-beens whose show has been cancelled 20 years ago, and are now making ends meet by attending conventions, and opening electrical stores. Until one day, an alien race of Thermians come visiting. They have been watching the transmissions of Galaxy Quest episodes, and have considered them to be "historical documents" of earth and its heroes. Naturally, they bring on board the crew to their ship, the Protector, modelled after the TV series. Only thing is, it's real.

So the Galaxy Quest crew have to play what they have been playing for years, except that it's for real. The ship, the planets, and the enemies as well. They have to quickly learn that they can only survive the harsh galaxy by believing in themselves, since everything on the ship works as it's imagined to be, and by believing in one another, just like in the show. Which is a pretty nifty message inserted into a comedic movie.

It's extremely fun, and do watch out for Sam Rockwell as Crewman Number 6, an extra on the original series who somehow get caught up in the mess, and crossing his fingers each time that he won't die, like on the show.

I've regretted not being able to have caught this in the theatres when it opened, given that it featured 3 aspect ratios in the same film, it would have been an experience to have watched it on the big screen, only if they screened it properly. Nonetheless, the DVD comes packed with loads of extras, so you might want to pick it up and watch it.

Sunday, December 25, 2005

With the word and controversy out on Steven Spielberg's Munich, instead of settling for a Hollywood drama of the terrorist event that faithful day of the Olympics, you might want to learn more from this Oscar winning documentary.

This documentary uses real footage throughout, with archived news reels, pictures, photos (of the dead, shot, burnt, otherwise), and interviews with family members. But their real coup would be to have interviewed the one and only surviving terrorist who partook in the horror against the spirit of the Olympics.

It also provides those born after 1972, or too young to remember, a look at the events surrounding that day - from the Olympic organizers who are too arrogant to suspend the games, the indifference of the athletes in the Olympic Village, the lack of adequate security (as compared to today), to the politics behind the entire affairs.

Perhaps what will rile you are the West German's botched attempt to rescue the hostages. They were surprisingly ill-prepared, deploying untrained teams, lack of proper equipment, and had to recall countless of attempts, before the final embarassment at the airport, which exposed their severe weakness at handling terrorist incidents. All the hostages were killed in the confrontation, when the terrorists threw hand grenades and emptied bullets into the helicopters they were in. It's only after this that the Germans formed their anti-terror squad, the GSG9 (Counter-strike players will be familiar with this term).

To make matters worse, there was a cover up and collusion between the Germans and the terrorists when the latter apparently hijacked a Lufthansa flight (with only 12 passengers on board, and no women and children), and the former handed over the 3 surviving terrorists of the Munich incident in exchange for safe passage of the flight.

Which is where Spielberg's movie comes in, following squads of Mossad agents hunting down and assassinating those 3 (1 managed to survive countless attempts on his life), together with others who are implicated or involved in the planning of the Munich operation.

This documentary provides an excellent and compelling background, preparing you for the Munich movie coming soon. Watch this.

Friday, December 23, 2005

After having so much fun with the Fly By Night competition, and developing The Undecided, we (massb, dgital, overider and myself) decided that we've got to follow up with another effort, and who knows, probably start making short films on a regular basis.

Somehow, overider's comment on his blog sparked off an idea which I shared with massb and dgital, and so here we are, still at the script stage. We should be on target to have the shooting script ready by 30th, where we'll be presenting to the other players who have been drafted (mostly voluntarily I'd like to think, haha) into production.

It's gonna be an insane Jan 06, but with the public holidays and long weekend, it presents a good opportunity to get things done :-) Cos the logistics, might be one heck of a pain!

Monday, December 19, 2005

The premise of this movie seemed interesting enough, although to some, it might be blasphemy. What if one day, the body (or rather, skeletal remains) of Christ was discovered in a similarly described tomb, with tell tale signs of the crucification, the spear wound, injuries inflicted by the crown of thorns, and the tomb dating back to 1 AD?

This film looks at the possible destruction of the faith which hinges on the one man's ressurection as God. Olivia Williams plays an Israeli Sharon Golban, who discovers this body in a tomb she excavates. Suspecting she could be on to something big, she calls for a priest to confirm her suspicion. Soon, word gets around, rumours get spread. The Vatican dispatches one of their priests, Father Gutierrez (played by Antonio Banderas), and ex-military intelligence officer, to investigate and proof or disproof the claim.

While science points to the fact that the body may be that of Christ, it gives a chilling insight into what could make, or break, a religion. Is it blind faith that keeps it going, even if there should come a day when science can ultimately disproof certain theories and events? Here, discovering that body has serious implications because of the repercussions that the major event in Christ's life have on Christians. But what diluted this film from its primary premise is the introduction of Hollywood subplots to jazz up production, like having the Vatican embroiled in political intrigue, and having terrorist organizations taking an interest in the findings as well.

It's a relatively low budgeted production, but one which raised thought provoking questions even if the delivery somehow got distracted in attempts to become a bigger movie in terms of action sequences. I think this film probably would be a good prologue to the controversies that surround next year's Da Vinci Code.

Code 1 DVD contains "special features", but nothing out of the ordinary besides the usual trailers, audio, and scene selections.

After staying at the Las Vegas Flamingo, and spending a substantial amount of time browsing through the artifacts of old Vegas at the Las Vegas History Museum at the Tropicana Hotel, this is one movie I wanted to watch when I got back. Not that I'm a fan of Warren Beatty (I only watched his Dick Tracy movie), but I'm interested in the Hollywood retelling of Benjamin "Bugsy" Siegel's story.

For the uninitiated, Siegel was a gangster, who loves his family, but is as horny as he can get. He falls in love with the Hollywood glamour and life, and comes to know his new mistress, a starlet called Virginia Hill (Annette Bening), who's known in some circles as the village bicycle - everyone's had a ride.

Seigel shares a love-hate relationship with Hill, and it is always bumpy. And little does he know that this love will ultimately cause his downfall and demise. Love aside, there's also plenty of scenes that shows Siegel's violent nature (hey, he's a gangster), and scenes too that highlights his disregard for money - he spends lavishly. There's a subplot about Mussolini too, which highlights Seigel's eccentricity.

But he does have a vision, and that was having the foresight of predicting how Las Vegas would become as important as can be, with the erection of the Hoover Dam to provide it with electricity. He's the one with the vision of creating something in the middle of the desert, which we know today as the Strip, with casinos, hotels, and entertainment from class acts. His vision started off as The Flamingo hotel, which overblew its budget by almost 5 million dollars (at that time). Of course, when you're dealing with mob money, you'd better be careful, as they become impatient with his grander vision of controlling a casino, city, state, and ultimately having the power to influence presidential elections.

Directed by Barry Levinson, Bugsy is the tale of that one man's vision. It's well acted, with a superb supporting cast. Keeping true to the finale, watch out for that flying eye too. And yes, Beatty and Bening met on set, and married thereafter.

Sunday, December 18, 2005

It actually took me 9 years to finally watch this slasher flick classic, and I'm now kicking my rear that I should've watched it when it premiered in local theatres back then. Credited as sparking off a slew of copycat slasher films in the late 90s, and reintroducing Wes Craven to a whole new generation, Scream will remain an important milestone for the horror-slasher genre.

Starring a relatively young and unknown (then) cast, Drew Barrymore opens in what is probably the most recognizable start to a horror movie, with her demise after being caught in a cat-and-mouse telephone call with the primary killer in the movie, a psychopath who dons the Halloween "Scream" costume.

That famous opening aside, Neve Campbell plays the main lead Sydney, a student who's now the new target of the killer. Given her complicated background of having her mom killed about a year ago, she is spooked by the fact that she could have sentenced the wrong killer to prison, and the real one is still out there, stalking her.

As with slasher movies, her group of friends become suspects and cannon fodder for the killer. What works is that although the cast is huge, and almost everyone is a suspect! The film doesn't let off throwing at you the red herrings, making you wonder what could be, and if it is.

Looking at the film, the killer is not the invulnerable being that always gets his prey. Here, he does get hit and attacked, which adds a totally new, believable dimension towards the instinct for survival. Also, there are tons of movie references which will keep every movie buff totally happy and jumping with glee at identifying them. I'd like the part where one of the characters laid down the 3 rules of horror films: Never have sex because only virgins survive, never smoke or drink, and never say "I'll be back", because you won't. Sort of summarizes every horror movie out there, doesn't it?

And the ending totally rocks. The script is intelligent (for a horror-slasher movie), and will catch you off guard, if you haven't been reading anything to spoil the movie, after 9 long years.

With Strictly Ballroom, I've completed Baz Luhrmann's Red Curtain Trilogy, with the other two diverse films Romeo and Juliet, and Moulin Rouge, common only on the theme of love. Started out as a stage play, Strictly Ballroom tells a tale about (surprise!) ballroom dancing, with Luhrmann's signature touches on colours and zaniness.

Ballroom dancing might not appeal to many, but this film is thoroughly enjoyable. It begins with the Waratah Championship, where we witness protagonist Scott Hastings losing the opportunity to win it, given his last minute impromptu decision to dance his own dance, totally neglecting the rules and form of ballroom dance.

He loses his partner too, as she doesn't want someone to tangent off without letting her know, and of course, not wanting to stick to the norm. So left partnerless, Scott has to look for someone willing to partner him. In comes geeky Fran, a beginner who's looking for that big break into amateur ballroom dancing, and between the two, they form an unlikely alliance.

Thrown in to the fray are both Scott's and Fran's family objections. With the Hastings, they are constantly looking for worthy dance partners to pair up with their son for the upcoming Pan Pacific Grand Prix. For Fran's, they shake their head at Scott's lack of rhythm. Coming from a spanish dance background, they train the duo and put the rhythm back in their feet.

The climax is one which is cliched, but yet wonderful and moving. I'd bet if it's watched in a movie theatre, it'll have you up on your feet, and clapping away too.

This movie contains a whole array of colourful and offbeat characters that one associates with a Luhrmann film. There's also an element of mystery thrown in as well, which keeps the audience guessing. With a mainly Australian cast, the characters are what make this movie so rich. This movie has a lot of heart, watch it and you'll understand what I mean.

I fell in love with the introductory analogy. Life is like the movies, in which you are the director, producer and the star. In your life, there are other co-stars, and of course, that significant other. But what if you happen not to be sharing the limelight in your other's life? Editing is always a pain, and in the final product, you will then learn if you are sharing the same billing, get relegated to a cameo, or in the worst case, get cut out entirely and lie on the floor of the editing room.

Similarly to my 2004 movie of the year, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, this film too takes a look at the trying to forget someone in your life entirely. Except in this one, there is no faux-pas scientific methods, but done by sheer human will and pretence.

This is a musical within a musical, and a beautifully choreographed one at that. First thoughts will be, hey, it looks like Moulin Rouge, with big colourful sets, dancers, singers, stunts, and songs with meaningful lyrics. Yes, and given similar themes like Love and Hate, but Perhaps Love tells its own story. The soundtrack befits the musical, and I won't be surprised if anyone adapts this for the stage too.

Japanese heartthrob Takeshi Kaneshiro plays Lin Jian Dong, a struggling film student when he met his love in Beijing. When the film begins, he's already an accomplished actor, and chances upon that same love in his latest movie collaboration. He's not the least surprised at being given the cold shoulder, and goes all out to try and win her back. But exactly what his motivations are - love, revenge, closure, that one pleasure filled fling, remained to be seen.

Much is said about his ability to sing (or lack thereof), but I felt that he sang convincingly in this movie, and fleshed out his role as the pained lover realistically. When his final intentions are revealed, you can't help but to emphatise - yes, that perhaps what he did was justified.

Contrasting Kaneshiro's character is Jackie Cheung's Nie Wen, the auteur director with his mood swings. His current lover and muse is Jian Dong's love in Beijing, and he comes to discover this fact after filming begins. He feels cheated upon, hurt, and channels his raw emotions onto the film. There should be no doubt as to Cheung's singing prowess - powerful is the one word summed up, though I thought it's always the same song? Between the two male leads, his is surprisingly magnanimous, and shows true courage as compared to Jian Dong.

Chinese actress Zhao Xun plays Sun Na, the woman caught between the two men. One is her lover in a past she wants to forget, while the other is her lover who brought her stardom in the present world. It's a highly complicated-in-emotions role, one which explores, and for those in love, might have felt in one way, or at some points in time. When you feel your love is holding you back, would you give it all up to pursue your dreams? Sun Na is one such woman, who will stop at absolutely no cost, and jump on every available opportunity presented, to seek fame and fortune. And it is she who walked out of Jian Dong's life at least twice, to be with an American director, and later, with Jian Dong's assistant director friend, before we currently see her in the present.

Ignoring Jian Dong when they meet in their new film, she can't help but feel her icy walls being broken down by his persistence, though Jian Dong had assistance from Korean Jin Ji-hee's role as Montage, a spirit who interacts with all characters and weaves in and out of the plot, bringing about a feel that there's always that higher being involved in events that unfold in life.

And the way the characters interact is probably fused so seamlessly into the musical, within the musical. Unable to express themselves freely, they do so through the musical's story, premise, and lines. It doesn't feel contrived, but the entire narrative seemed flawless. Even the flashbacks doesn't mar the pacing of the film, but brings about a natural progression and revelation of character development and events.

Perhaps Love is a truly wonderful experience, especially for those who have been in the same ship before. Its ending isn't typical, but one which perhaps is the most realistic an ending can be for the characters involved. Peter Chan has crafted a beautiful masterpiece of a musical for the Hong Kong film industry. Catch this on the big screen before its run is over!

Saturday, December 17, 2005

The trailers, the posters, the casting, all looked promising. Sadly, the storyline is one heck of a convulated one, and I hate to use the word, but absurd is what The Promise is.

This is a fantasy picture as promoted, and true enough, it is, so much that you have to leave your brains at the door. In trying to sound intelligent, the plot fumbles and ended up really unconvincing. It's all style and little substance. To associate this with martial arts films is to insult the genre, and one shouldn't even mention this film nor compare it to Ang Lee's Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. It's time filmmakers wake up to the idea that CTHD is a one-off that cannot be replicated. Do not try to go one up by having characters fly faster, higher, harder. Or run so fast they can break the space-time continuum and time travel. Science fiction this is not.

Yet, you cannot fault the cinematography, which seemed beautiful, until a closer scrutiny makes it so obvious that it's CGI created. Think Storm Rider's special effects in the creation of its world, there is no improvement in the refinement of graphics in The Promise after so many years. Does this mean that only the West can come up with believable CGI worlds for audiences?

Plot loopholes are abound, and you can drive a horde of running bulls right through it. You also get the usual villain driven soliloquy at the finale explaining his grudge he unbelievably held for so long (and the lengths he goes to settle it), and some homosexual undertones in one of the minor characters too. Hip? Guess not. What fails in plot delivery is having drag on what is obvious to the audience (but not to a character) for too long. In fact, almost the entire length of the movie. It wearies the audience, and insults the audience's intelligence.

So what's this movie about? It's a love triangle of sorts, between a Princess (Cecilia Cheung), a General of the Crimson Army (Japan's Hiroyuki Sanada), and his slave Kunlun (Korea's Jang Dong Gun). Playing the chief villain is Nicholas Tse, whose pretty boy looks probably made his character less threatening. Destiny is the running theme of the movie, where each character is destined for certain goals and events, and one in which is set in stone. Cursed by a fairy when young, the Princess is not to find true love, until impossible conditions are met. And the General too is foretold the elements leading to his impending death. What started off plotwise, as promising, degenerated into a web of blah which I wince at by just recalling it.

Are there any saving graces in the movie? Yes, but they are few. Look out for the fights involving Nicholas Tse, where I thought his use of the fan as a lethal boomerang was a marvel to watch. Cecilia Cheung also lit up the screen, but not for her acting nor the character's development though. The editing of a love scene too was uncalled for to get a PG rating, so that more audiences could fill the theatres. I reckon the word of mouth for this film will unsettle that. Hiroyuki Sanada and Jang Dong Gun, I guess, tried their best with the flimsily weak storyline to deliver their lines in Mandarin. Better that way too, with the rubbish I hope they don't understand.

If there is any movie which failed to live up to its hype, this movie is it, miserably. I'm sad to say that this is easily one of the worst films of the year. One more thing, they should have subtitled the opening titles explaining the background of the movie too, if they want to target non-mandarin speaking audiences. Slip-shoddy, careless start to a Chen Kaige disappointment.

Friday, December 16, 2005

Santa knows you're naughty or nice, so won't you be at your best behaviour come Christmas? For John Cusack and Billy Bob Thornton, afraid not, as they go on an embezzlement of 2 million dollars in The Ice Harvest.

You can check out my review at movieXclusive by clicking on the logo below

This review brought to you courtesy of a movieXclusive preview session.

I'd watch Blood and Bones for one reason, and that's for 'Beat' Takeshi Kitano. Local audiences will probably remember him in recent roles from Battle Royale, Brother, and Zatoichi. Here, he plays Jyombion Kim, one of the early pioneer Koreans who emigrated to Japan.

From the start, the narration tells us the story of this one man and his life, from a teenager, until his deathbed. And he's a violent man at that, always with a drink in hand, which brings out the worst in him. If he wants to copulate, he makes sure he does. If he wants to whack the living daylights out of a person, or family member, he does too. He's Mr Domestic Violence personified, with cruel beatings to get his way. From opening a fishcake business, to loan-sharking, his aloof, and philandering ways created his extended dysfunctional family, their trials and tribulations. He is an independent, wandering soul, and will probably provide for an interesting character study.

Besides the nice cinematography, the beautiful soundtrack is probably what made it easy to go through this excruciating slow paced movie. If you're not careful, you might nod off at time. The material might be uncomfortable for some; though there was violence, there isn't much gore.

Weaved throughout the show at various points, is the look into the treatment of these Korean immigrants in Japan, the discrimination and difficulties faced in living in another's homogeneous society. There are many characters in the movie - sons, daughters, in-laws, half-siblings, wives, mistresses, that you'll probably be able to create a neat family tree if you link all of them on paper. But don't expect too much story on the ensemble of characters, most of them get their focus at various points, then are quietly dispatched to the background.

It's an awfully sad tale, nothing in it that will make you cheer. But there is something to cheer about the movie though, and that it is shown here uncut and unedited. Meaning you get to see it as it was intended, including male genitalia.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Peter Jackson nailed Kong! (Please pardon bad pun) In his version based on the 1933 classic, Jackson delivered as promised, sticking close to the source material, yet adding his touches of epic grandeur. Doubling the original's length, clocking in at 3 hours, provided ample opportunity for character development for the major leads (and even for Kong itself), and doesn't scrimp on elaborate action sequences.

Kudos to the cast for their effort in what is mostly interaction within imaginary backgrounds and a digital Kong. The main leads of Naomi Watts as vaudeville actress Ann Darrow, Jack Black as movie director Carl Denham and Adrien Brody as screenwriter Jack Driscoll were almost perfect. Given loads of time to flesh out their characters, you'd come to appreciate and understand their motivations a lot more. Black, known more for his zany comedies, makes a wonderful Carl Denham, adding slight humour to his dramatic role. Watts, as usual, looked beautiful in her role as the damsel, who, in an update, brings a certain tough attitude to her fragile exterior. Brody completes the trinity as the lovelorn Jack Driscoll who has to battle Kong for the affections of Darrow.

Production values were certainly top notch, and in the instant this movie opens, you'll fall in love with the accurate depiction of 30s Manhanttan. For those who already know of the story outline, we begin in New York where Denham seeks out a new aspiring actress for his new movie set in Singapore (yes, we're mentioned, just like the 1976 remake). However, he's really leading the ship and crew to Skull Island to make his new movie, and there, they meet up with the island's unfriendly and hostile inhabitants, as well as its god, Kong.

The movie takes about an hour to reach the island, and hence some might find it slow moving. But keep your eyes peeled on the beautiful cinematography, and listen closely to the dialogue - plenty of references to the original Kong movie (I so loved the line where they wanted to get Fay Wray involved in their production, but sadly she had an ongoing movie project with RKO. Classic!)

And Skull Island proved to be an action sequence playground, with the much touted Kong versus the Rexes (3 of them actually, probably my favourite would be the finale where Kong dealt the killing blows) being the highlight. In a parallel sequence consisting of Denham, Driscoll and various expendable crew, the dino-chase sequence probably put the Jurassic Park sequels to shame, although there are some portions where the digital rendering looked cheap. But minor nitpicking aside, it still made for some edge-of-your-seat moments.

The hour on Skull Island provided much time for the Beast to fall for the Beauty, keeping her as its trophy companion, who performed vaudeville acts for its entertainment, while it served as her protector from mutant like creatures. Andy Serkis provided much of the facial movements and expressions for Kong, just like he did for Gollum in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. And we do see the sensitive side of the much maligned ape - it seemed that all it wants is a little tranquility, watching beautiful sunsets / sunrises with its human playmate, who seemed to be able to take the roller coaster tossings from limb to limb and from vine to vine with nary a scratch to her beautiful legs and indestructible lingerie. Perhaps a departure from the other Kongs is that this digital one kept its primal instincts in check, and doesn't attempt to disrobe our heroine. Noble.

But as Fate would have it, Kong gets captured in an intense sequence, which shows off its brutality. The movie makes no apologies for many bites, kicks, and slams between human and beast, or amongst beasts. It's violent, but that's the way it probably is. And in Manhatten, hailed as the Eighth Wonder of the World, Kong wrecks havoc to look for Darrow, and brings her atop the Empire State Building for the climatic showdown. In between, I thought the ice rink moment was a pretty nifty touch, but one which somehow jarred the pace until the intervention of the army.

And that iconic final scene, what a beauty! You'd know it's a lost cause, but yet it's a tragic spectacle to witness. To the sentimental ones, no, I know we'd have all fallen in love with Jackson's Kong by then, but we're sticking to the original, so don't expect anything else but the original ending. And speaking of which, I sure would have loved to hear Howard Shore's rendition of the soundtrack, but alas, his hasty departure due to creative differences with Jackson paved the way for James Newton Howard to pen the score. Not that it's bad, but I thought it lacked a certain oomph at times.

In short, this Kong has all the ingredients of a mighty fine event movie. Given its length, it doesn't squander its opportunities for a more in depth take at one of the best known cinematic monsters created. Definite must-watch!

Monday, December 12, 2005

I watched this in Las Vegas on the opening day of 9 Dec 05. Sadly, I thought that I would be better off watching Zhang Ziyi in Memoirs of a Geisha, or George Clooney in Syrianna...

This is one of seven books by CS Lewis on the fantasy world of Narnia. My earliest recall of the story was an animated cartoon, where 4 children chanced upon a wardrobe which transported them to a medieval-fantasy ice world ruled by an evil witch.

The introductory scene might confuse audiences that their watching Band of Brothers, though the German blitz over London is a sight to behold. Father Pevensie has gone off to fight in the war, and Mother Pevensie decided to pack the 4 Pevensie children, Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy, to the countryside to seek safe havens. They get to live with Professor Kirke (Jim Broadbent in an extremely underutilised role), and the youngest of them all, Lucy, discovers the Wardrobe in one of the mansion's rooms.

The children bicker a lot, and through their Narnia adventures, learn about the importance of family and cooperation. Disbelieving Lucy at first, the rest got introduced to the wardrobe soon enough, and thus begin their stay in Narnia only after an hour into the movie (Yes, it takes that long before something decent happens on screen). Put under an icy curse, Narnia awaits the arrival of 2 sons of Adam and 2 daughters of Eve to deliver it from the clutches of the evil White Witch (Tilda Swindon, perhaps the only human form in Narnia).

But first, the children have to learn to make sense of the gifts bestowed upon them by Father Christmas, as well as to seek out Aslan, the mytical (speaking) lion, voiced by the regal Liam Neeson, in yet another mentor-like role after this years Kingdom of Heaven and Batman Begins. Yes, he's a good choice, but used too often it becomes deja-vu.

The talking animals became the talk of the town amongst some critical circles, but I say, give it a break. There are talking lions, beavers, wolves, foxes, etc, whose lips move in sync with their impeccable English, that I'm sure will sell many merchandize, probably soft toys.

While the cinematography is beautiful, somehow, familiarity with the source material brought about a monotone feel to the narrative. You'd know what will happen next, and the way this movie is delivered, there isn't much of a crescendo or scenes to excite. Shrek director Andrew Adamson should have known better, but opted for the safe and boring route.

The acting by the animals surpassed their human counterparts. The four Pevensie children are excruciating painful to watch. Their acting's very contrived and forced, and I wonder if there could be other worthy contenders amongst those who auditioned. The pixel-creations of the animators gave the animals more range than the 4 kids. Tilda Swindon looked evil throughout, but that's about it. Somehow her androgynous role as Gabriel in Constantine was way better than her role here as the resident bitch.

The highlight is probably the much talked about, effects laden war scene, but from scenes in the trailer, there isn't much else to add. Already spoilt by mega war scenes from the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Chronicles doesn't go one up against what audiences already experienced, safe to subsitute Uruk-hais and various Orcs with animals and mythical creatures like the centaurs. Lacking intensity throughout the battle, I was taking stock of which animal was on whose side, like the polar bears and white tigers on the side of the White Witch, and the mass of centaurs on Aslan's.

Don't get me started on the religiousness and the classification that this film is "Passion of the Christ" for kids. If you subscribe to that, you'll believe anything. It's bollocks, and I think one must have read too much into the major sacrificial and ressurection scene. There is hardly any blood spilt, nor is there any major bloody torture scene to rival Mel Gibson's picture. Just because this scene is similar to Christ's ressurection, or the theme of the coming of the messiah(s), or the betrayal scene makes one label this movie as such, is stretching it a bit too far. It's a children's movie/story, for crying out loud, so just leave it as such.

Will this movie make money? Sure, on the fact that it's an event movie. Chronicles of Narnia built its hype, but didn't offer anything new in terms of special effects, and was weighted down by mediocre acting and a plain, bland narrative. Should there be another movie based on the books, let's hope it betters the first one.

I've actually caught this on a Northwest flight enroute to Las Vegas, so this makes it my first review from those puny LCD screens at the back of an Airbus seat. But hey, given the time it gets to hit the screens here (end of the year?!) I might as well proceed with watching this from anywhere, yeah?

In one word: Excellent! I'm a sucker for stop-motion animation, and this movie takes the cake. For the uninitiated, Wallace & Gromit tells the tale of a wacky inventor and his faithful dog, who is a highly intelligent mutt that can walk on his hind legs and operate various contraptions.

In the Curse of the Were-Rabbit, Wallace & Gromit protect the town's annual vegetable growing contest by ridding the town's rabbit problem (oh, so cute, you wanna give them a carrot to chew on). However, their humane techniques of capturing these critters, especially the loads from Lady Tottington (Helena Bonham Carter, straight from another stop motion pic The Corpse Bride), led them to a storage problem.

Wallace comes up with a hare-brained (pardon the pun) idea of brainwashing the rabbits into becoming non-vegetarians led to a mysterious appearance of a king-sized rabbit haunting the populace, and it's up to our favourite man-dog team to return things back to normal, while fending off the competition from a certain Victor Quartermaine (Ralph Fiennes), a poke at a certain Alan Quartermaine.

While the storyline's pretty straightforward, and the mystery of the Were-Rabbit would've been a non-event for most moviegoers, what makes this movie enjoyable is the intricate details of the plasticine used in making the characters and town come alive. What works is not pretending to tell a very intelligent story, but one that is simple, accessible and therefore, entertaining. And THE character that steals the show is Gromit, given quite a bit of screen time and involved in pretty much all the action sequences. Kudos too to the filmmakers for refusing to budge to recast the voice of Wallace.

You must watch this, and I'd give it thumbs up as the animation of the year contender!

P.S. attached to this picture is a short clip from the Penguins of Madagascar. I thought it was pretty hilarious too, and those dudes certainly deserve a picture of their own.

After 7 days in Vegas, I'm finally back in hot and humid Singapore. Great to be back I must say, after the roti-beef laden diet in the USofA.

Prior to departure, I've submitted a review to movieXclusive called Lilya 4-ever. It's a foreign language movie dealing with the theme of child prostitution. You can click on the logo below to read the review

Meanwhile, stay tuned as I pen my reviews for Wallace and Gromit, and Narnia, which I caught during it's opening day in the US.

Friday, December 02, 2005

Hi there Netizens from IMDb.com, RottenTomatoes, DVDForums and various other boards out there

When I first posted my Aeon Flux review, little did I expect it to have made its rounds in the internet boards like it would, and gotten some remarks like it's fake, etc.

Well, let me clarify that I'm not working for Paramount or am in the industry (as some have claimed). I've an average joe schmuck movie goer like any of you who visit my site, to see my opinions of a particular movie.

And yes, Singapore had got a screening of Aeon Flux on 30th Nov 05 1900hrs, in case you're wondering. And I have no idea why any special screenings, previews, for the critics or not, was pulled out from your respective lands.

Though some sites have listed the main website address (thank you very much) and credited me for writing the "First Official Review", I felt that I should point you folks to what you're here for, and you can click on this link to bring you where you're supposed to be... the Aeon Flux Review

Have fun! And leave comments while you're at it yeah? And oh, did I really rave so badly about Charlize Theron looking so good in that role?

Hi there, Regulars of ANutshellReview, I'll be away in the land which Bugsy created, where Con Air flew over and knocked that Hard Rock Cafe signboard, where Danny Ocean and his bunch of Merry Men raided the Bellagio, where Nicholas Cage got laid by Elizabeth Shue... you get the drift

So there won't be an update on movies which are released in Singapore over the period when I'm away, like Perhaps Love (though you can always tune in to the reviews from the good folks over at movieXclusive)

But it's still on my watch list, and I'll be catching it once I'm back on 12th Dec, in time for King Kong! (Bought my tickets already btw)

So later friends, but don't expect any Kiss and Tell.... 'cos what happens in Vegas, STAYS in Vegas! ;-)

The little chicken has descended on our cinema screens, having teased us endlessly with its chicken dance to the tune of Dragostea Din Tei (that numa-ye song) which preceded most movie screenings, in most theatres, until scratches appeared on that reminder to turn off your mobile phone.

Coming from Disney, with its highly featured departure on making 3D animated films with Pixar, I'd consider it quite a good attempt. Watching it in a digital format, the images are clear, sharp, and Chicken Little itself so cuddly, you'd just want to hug it (the soft toy looks a bit out of shape though).

Based on the well known children's tale, an acorn fell on the head of a chicken and it thought the sky was falling, thereby activating its friends to run for safe haven, only to have the fox trick them all into becoming its dinner.

But this is Disney after all, and gruesome scenes like these are censored and reinvented. Here, the original tale is parodied in the beginnning, and the townsfolk reckoned that Chicken Little is a mad little boy, and caused an embarassment to his single parent Father. Being the outcast of school and society, that didn't stop him from being inventive and creative in life (excellent fun sequence I must say), with loyal pals like Runt the fat pig, Fish out of water, and Abby the Ugly Duckling. Besides these characters, I thought it was a good nod to the original tale by incorporating (minor) characters like Turkey Lurkey, Foxy Loxy and Goosey Loosey.

Some might not enjoy Chicken Little, given that we're spoilt with more adult oriented fare like Shrek, or Pixar's always excellent efforts, but I felt it was a refreshing change to watch something simpler. Sure the parodies are there - look out for spoofs on King Kong, the various explicit reference to War of the Worlds, and even Star Wars, but eventually these gave way to its focus on a very basic theme.

That of a child looking for parental acceptance. Chicken Little tries so hard to make his father proud of him, especially after his "Sky is Falling" debacle, that he thought he almost did after a baseball game, but alas, skeletons in the closet return to haunt him, this time, totally unrelated to the original story with the invasion of space aliens. I thought that sequence totally rocked, and was insane, in a good way.

Adam West makes a (voice) cameo as Ace, the Hollywood version of Chicken Litte, which I thought was the best spoof of the entire movie (and brought back memories of his Batman series with his slow, calm voice). Patrick Stewart too lends his voice as a teacher, and given that it's a sheep, the classroom lessons become one of the hardest laughing scene in the movie.

So if you're up for some light entertainment, make it Chicken Little, and no, he does NOT dance to that song, and neither is it played, again. So I do not know why there's so much hate and negative vibes for this movie. Relax! It's about a little chicken trying to find recognition in spite of its size. Give it to him, will ya? What did you say?

Finally, a movie based on a source material that I've read! Based on the graphic novel of the same name by writer John Wagner and artist Vince Locke, A History of Violence is David Cronenberg's latest film starring Viggo Mortensen (don't know why, but I'm always seeing Elessar in his new character...)

I'm usually ok with film adaptations not sticking closely to the material it's based on, basically because they're on different mediums, and it's a bore to have the movie follow the book word for word, scene for scene. Although this review will be working on the premise that it is a stand alone film, I can't help to notice that, unfortunately, the book told the better story, in terms of characterization (ok, so the movie is relatively short, clocking in about 90mins) and the back story on Tom's (Viggo) history.

If you'd bear with me, I'd highlight some of the major departures from the book - Tom's son now has a beefed up role, Ed Harris's wounded eye is on the wrong side (as shown in the trailers and movie, it's on his left, but it should be the right) and Tom's last name from McKenna has been changed to Stall. The story and ending of Richie has been totally changed. The book has 3 chapters, but it's only the first that the movie dwells upon, and completely changing and summarizing the last 2 chapters.

The introduction is one incredibly long, and slow scene which showcases the 2 killers that Tom dispatches in his diner thereafter. I like this scene which is superior to the book, but somehow it sets the pace of the entire movie - slow and measured.

The story tells of an everyday all American Family, the Stalls, who live in a small town of Millbrook, Indiana, being brought to the limelight when head of the household Tom, guns down 2 violent thugs who robbed his diner and threatening his customers. Tom, a soft-spoken man, becomes the town's hero, and soon after, more thugs from the East Coast come and stalk him and his family.

But is Tom the man he claims he is, or has his past finally caught up with him? Playing Tom, Viggo Mortensen puts up a credible performance as the unassuming Tom Stall, and does an about turn as a violent character of his past. While the theme talks about violence and the debate on the necessity of it, it gets brushed away pretty quick towards the last act, which degenerates this movie into a short actioner.

Needless to say, the psyche of the Family plays an important role between contrasting the relationship between Tom and his wife and kids, which changes as the movie progresses, and that between Tom and Ritchie (completely re-written for the movie), which I thought was a pity.

The R21 rating is for violence (gruesome shots of heads blown off etc), but if they'd stuck to the book, there'll be more scenes like the one with the drill-in-the-leg torture scene, etc. But Cronenberg decided to include sex scenes between Tom and his wife, which figured some cheerleading role play, a 69, and a totally out of character rowdy staircase romp. Hello, this is not a History of Sex. (I know it's Cronenberg, but still)

While I liked this film for its slow pace (no frantic MTV styled quick cuts, or scenes which appear and disappear at the bat of an eyelid), I can't shake off the feeling that this film had the potential to be way, way better. Excellent I do not think so, but it still is an enjoyable movie to catch on a weekday.

About Me

I'm a Singapore based film buff and a keen supporter of Singapore films good and bad. I've been writing about Singapore Cinema and Singapore film-related activities since 2005. I am also a contributing writer at movieXclusive.com, TwitchFilm.net, and Sinema.sg.